I have found that over the 25 years of being online that the person that feels the need to lend credibility to what they are saying tend to have the least.
Judge by the weight and substance of what is being said.
Example: What you said is comeplete bull, I have a degree in chemical engineering...I know what im talking about.
or
I think you are off by 1.6 microns which is why your inertia calculations make no sense. stupidhead.
both contain insults, one claims credibility...the other has actual detailed information showing he has an idea what he is actually talking about.
Now one may say...hey...you felt the need to tell us how long you have been online to gain credibility!
Yep...but I also gave a detailed explaination as to how to tell who does and who doesnt...lending credibility to what I am saying!
Thats the 3rd example, thos trying to gain credibility TEND to have the lest...not always so judge by the content of whats being said. Thus endith the lesson.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
I propose a simple suggestion to give credibility to any GW2 review: post the name of your nandle. The one you use to post in the official forums. Ofc there are ways around this, but its better than nothing. As i believe by preaching by example, my forum name is seventh son (i havent put the id number. Lets keep something to ourselves)
Your assuming that every reviewer posts on the official forums though, I would actually guess that the vast majority of people haven't actually posted on the offical forums, myself included.
Have you prepurchased and been in the BWE then? Just don't have an official forum account name?
No I do have a forum name it's Drifyt.SomeNumber, I just haven't posted in them
Then you know you don't need to post to have a forum name which is what he was suggesting. People can just make up forum names though, and I don't think there is a way to verify names so what does this really accomplish?
In the end it matters little. It is annoying the people who make things up to post reviews or post criticism/complaints. It is also annoying for people to gloss over things that could be real problems or simply things that some people do not like. It's just as annoying for people to twist things in a weird campaign for who knows what reason.
It is a little sad that there are people who rely on this site for objectivity and insight (if you are reading this and think you may be one of those people: DON'T.). These people may get swayed by these false statements, oh well. In the end, there are certain people who will claim GW2 is the best thing ever no matter what happens, and there are those who will call it a fail and hate on it no matter what. In the end, if you enjoy the game......enjoy it. If not, go find a game/hobby you like.
Then you know you don't need to post to have a forum name which is what he was suggesting. People can just make up forum names though, and I don't think there is a way to verify names so what does this really accomplish?
In the end it matters little. It is annoying the people who make things up to post reviews or post criticism/complaints. It is also annoying for people to gloss over things that could be real problems or simply things that some people do not like. It's just as annoying for people to twist things in a weird campaign for who knows what reason.
It is a little sad that there are people who rely on this site for objectivity and insight (if you are reading this and think you may be one of those people: DON'T.). These people may get swayed by these false statements, oh well. In the end, there are certain people who will claim GW2 is the best thing ever no matter what happens, and there are those who will call it a fail and hate on it no matter what. In the end, if you enjoy the game......enjoy it. If not, go find a game/hobby you like.
Oh don't get me wrong I agree with you, its why i tend not to read reviews or forums too often and formulate my own opinion. I'm reading these ones now because I got up early for the stress test
I have found that over the 25 years of being online that the person that feels the need to lend credibility to what they are saying tend to have the least.
Judge by the weight and substance of what is being said.
Example: What you said is comeplete bull, I have a degree in chemical engineering...I know what im talking about.
or
I think you are off by 1.6 microns which is why your inertia calculations make no sense. stupidhead.
both contain insults, one claims credibility...the other has actual detailed information showing he has an idea what he is actually talking about.
Now one may say...hey...you felt the need to tell us how long you have been online to gain credibility!
Yep...but I also gave a detailed explaination as to how to tell who does and who doesnt...lending credibility to what I am saying!
Thats the 3rd example, thos trying to gain credibility TEND to have the lest...not always so judge by the content of whats being said. Thus endith the lesson.
if you consider what we had in 1987 being "online" then in my 28 years of being online I disagree with you. The second example contained detail, but if I don't know chemistry I wouldn't know if that is completely made up BS or if it was correct data. People who don't know about the game and check reviews, well... they don't know about the game do they?
For example, someone who did not know much details about the game could come to this site and read a review that was incredibly detailed and walk away with an opinion of the game based on that. Since that person had no idea engineer's don't get the weapon swap ability they could not tell that review was a complete fabrication. Just as an example.
I agree with what you are saying in many cases but you have to already have knowledge on the subject to tell the bs from the real details. That usually isn't the case when someone is doing initial research, and they may come away with false information.
I have found that over the 25 years of being online that the person that feels the need to lend credibility to what they are saying tend to have the least.
Judge by the weight and substance of what is being said.
Example: What you said is comeplete bull, I have a degree in chemical engineering...I know what im talking about.
or
I think you are off by 1.6 microns which is why your inertia calculations make no sense. stupidhead.
both contain insults, one claims credibility...the other has actual detailed information showing he has an idea what he is actually talking about.
Now one may say...hey...you felt the need to tell us how long you have been online to gain credibility!
Yep...but I also gave a detailed explaination as to how to tell who does and who doesnt...lending credibility to what I am saying!
Thats the 3rd example, thos trying to gain credibility TEND to have the lest...not always so judge by the content of whats being said. Thus endith the lesson.
Unfortunately the whole reason of your post was to lend credibility to your theory of "those trying to gain credibility tend to have the least". Id say you have cornered yourself into a nice logical loop.
It sounds to me as though you are assuming people are lying about playing the game because you disagree strongly with them. Is that a fair call?
Actually, it's quite fair to mention that a good many "reviews" were indeed by people that didn't play. One of my "favorite" negative reviews was a big, long write-up by someone claiming to have played an engineer. The kicker was when they said they were swapping from a rifle to pistol and shield and that didn't really add much. The whole post stunk of a lack of basic game knowledge, and that clinched it.
Yes, there were a few of those types of reviews where people didn't even know the basic mechanics of the game. Engineers don't get weapon swap, for example. There were a few others similar to that where people made comments on other things in the game that were "off."
I don't place any real creedence on "reviews" on this site except the rare FEW people that I've seen around here long enough and have shown some sort of decent character. To those few I will listen. Otherwise, I think I just assume ulterior motives, for the most part, either for or against the game in question. Trolls abound here, after all, there's really no denying that, and fanbois too are in great numbers (although I sincerely think there are MORE trolls).
In the end I have to decide on games for myself. If I make a mistake, I have no one to blame but myself. If I choose a great game....I have no one to thank but my own research.
I have found that over the 25 years of being online that the person that feels the need to lend credibility to what they are saying tend to have the least.
Judge by the weight and substance of what is being said.
Example: What you said is comeplete bull, I have a degree in chemical engineering...I know what im talking about.
or
I think you are off by 1.6 microns which is why your inertia calculations make no sense. stupidhead.
both contain insults, one claims credibility...the other has actual detailed information showing he has an idea what he is actually talking about.
Now one may say...hey...you felt the need to tell us how long you have been online to gain credibility!
Yep...but I also gave a detailed explaination as to how to tell who does and who doesnt...lending credibility to what I am saying!
Thats the 3rd example, thos trying to gain credibility TEND to have the lest...not always so judge by the content of whats being said. Thus endith the lesson.
if you consider what we had in 1987 being "online" then in my 28 years of being online I disagree with you. The second example contained detail, but if I don't know chemistry it wouldn't know if that is completely made up BS or if it was correct things. People who don't know about the game and check reviews well.. they don't know about the game do they?
For example, someone who did not know much details about the game could come to this site and read a review that was incredibly detailed and walk away with an opinion of the game based on that. Since that person had no idea engineer's don't get the weapon swap ability they could not tell that review was a complete fabrication. Just as an example.
I agree with what you are saying in many cases but you have to already have knowledge on the subject to tell the bs from the real details. That usually isn't the case when someone is doing initial research, and they may come away with false information.
I have no idea what online was like either 25 or 28 years ago but i was introduced to JANET at college in 1992 and thought it was the most amazing thing back then heh. Then At uni in 1994 I played my first MUD Farside i thik it was called and my life has never been the same since lol
I'm not supposed to read your posts, but sadly quotes don't get blocked, so I've seen this and had to answer to stop the misinformation.
You don't need to target anything in GW2 during combat. Aim a pack of mobs (without targetting), hit an attack, and the attack will hit the mob(s) you are facing towards. Don't believe me? Try it next beta (if you even play the game, which I start to seriously doubt).
You could do the same in AOC and now TSW, but I wouldn't consider either to be "aim based" combat.
You can do both, and both work fine. At the end of the last week end, I wasn't targetting anymore unless I really wanted to charge to a specific mob with my warrior.
IS it a matter of coned attacks (hits all in a radius)? That's what AOC and TSW use, or is it something else?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm not supposed to read your posts, but sadly quotes don't get blocked, so I've seen this and had to answer to stop the misinformation.
You don't need to target anything in GW2 during combat. Aim a pack of mobs (without targetting), hit an attack, and the attack will hit the mob(s) you are facing towards. Don't believe me? Try it next beta (if you even play the game, which I start to seriously doubt).
You could do the same in AOC and now TSW, but I wouldn't consider either to be "aim based" combat.
You can do both, and both work fine. At the end of the last week end, I wasn't targetting anymore unless I really wanted to charge to a specific mob with my warrior.
IS it a matter of coned attacks (hits all in a radius)? That's what AOC and TSW use, or is it something else?
Every attack works that way, you don't need a target to fire it. If you get in the event today, you can try, and you will notice you can fire attacks even if there's no hostile mob around you to target.
EDIT: for instance, I was often using charge (or the equivalent on the various classes) when I wanted to travel faster, like a kind of sprint, even without any mob in range. The same ability is also useful to flee when things go wrong, just run in a direction with no mob with nothing targeted, and charge, and you'll gain distance with your pursuers.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
I have found that over the 25 years of being online that the person that feels the need to lend credibility to what they are saying tend to have the least.
Judge by the weight and substance of what is being said.
Example: What you said is comeplete bull, I have a degree in chemical engineering...I know what im talking about.
or
I think you are off by 1.6 microns which is why your inertia calculations make no sense. stupidhead.
both contain insults, one claims credibility...the other has actual detailed information showing he has an idea what he is actually talking about.
Now one may say...hey...you felt the need to tell us how long you have been online to gain credibility!
Yep...but I also gave a detailed explaination as to how to tell who does and who doesnt...lending credibility to what I am saying!
Thats the 3rd example, thos trying to gain credibility TEND to have the lest...not always so judge by the content of whats being said. Thus endith the lesson.
Unfortunately the whole reason of your post was to lend credibility to your theory of "those trying to gain credibility tend to have the least". Id say you have cornered yourself into a nice logical loop.
I give you an F, re-read and study the lesson and try again.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
IS it a matter of coned attacks (hits all in a radius)? That's what AOC and TSW use, or is it something else?
Every attack works that way, you don't need a target to fire it. If you get in the event today, you can try, and you will notice you can fire attacks even if there's no hostile mob around you to target.
Yeah I'm aware of the free fire, I'm just wondering how the "aimed" attacks work, are they AOE's or totally aimed, IE: you can hone in on a target precisely?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
IS it a matter of coned attacks (hits all in a radius)? That's what AOC and TSW use, or is it something else?
Every attack works that way, you don't need a target to fire it. If you get in the event today, you can try, and you will notice you can fire attacks even if there's no hostile mob around you to target.
Yeah I'm aware of the free fire, I'm just wondering how the "aimed" attacks work, are they AOE's or totally aimed, IE: you can hone in on a target precisely?
What they affect is usually in the skill description, e.g. 5 mobs around you, or 3 mobs in front, or all mobs in front, etc... and of course some attacks only affect a single mob right in front of you. Different skills have different effects when it comes to AOE.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Since last BWE, ive readen lots of reviews by people who claim they took part in it, some positive, some not so much. Among the second, you find some from people who clearly played the game and found it was not their cup of tea (generally people expecting a more sandboxy feel ) and people who , for reasons i cant even begin to understand, havent really touched it but claim they have in an effort to give substance to what it could have been an otherwise valid critic ("im not going to try GW 2 because of...." is valid. Claiming a first hand experience you dont have is not)
I propose a simple suggestion to give credibility to any GW2 review: post the name of your nandle. The one you use to post in the official forums. Ofc there are ways around this, but its better than nothing. As i believe by preaching by example, my forum name is seventh son (i havent put the id number. Lets keep something to ourselves)
Nahh, the real issue was people doing this typing a well written and lengthy explination with tons of details and facts about GW2, how they played an engineer etc. then adding one sentence i would switch my weapon from rifle to pistol and shield if things got close in while fighting....
In there reading and trolling of GW2 they missed that eles and engis cannot switch weapons in combat like other classes can. Stuff like this over and over. Sure there are some people who said .... i just didn't liek the game ... but they usually didn't provide much details thus you have to take them at their word... noe for those who say DE work just like previous rifts or PQs and discribed why a bit, it was easy agian to be like well obviouslly you didn't play them. Becuase your facts are wrong.
But thats a semi good solution, but you could just make up a name ... no one is goign to check anyway.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Yeah I'm aware of the free fire, I'm just wondering how the "aimed" attacks work, are they AOE's or totally aimed, IE: you can hone in on a target precisely?
What they affect is usually in the skill description, e.g. 5 mobs around you, or 3 mobs in front, or all mobs in front, etc... and of course some attacks only affect a single mob right in front of you. Different skills have different effects when it comes to AOE.
Cool thanks for the info.. That's how I figured it worked but I wasn't sure.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
IS it a matter of coned attacks (hits all in a radius)? That's what AOC and TSW use, or is it something else?
Every attack works that way, you don't need a target to fire it. If you get in the event today, you can try, and you will notice you can fire attacks even if there's no hostile mob around you to target.
Yeah I'm aware of the free fire, I'm just wondering how the "aimed" attacks work, are they AOE's or totally aimed, IE: you can hone in on a target precisely?
Ok well all attacks are in a way ones that u can aim with. But a few are directional AIMs. How they work is you point your mouse in the direction and height you want it to go and it flys that direction (like FPS/tera) Also the GTAOEs are much like aimed abilities in gw2. As with the FAST option of quick aoe something option basiccly where ever your mouse is thasts where the GTAOE is going (many classes main abilities is a gtaoe that needs targesting on few sec cd so you use it alot and do far more damage with the faST option enabled)
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
I have found that over the 25 years of being online that the person that feels the need to lend credibility to what they are saying tend to have the least.
Judge by the weight and substance of what is being said.
Example: What you said is comeplete bull, I have a degree in chemical engineering...I know what im talking about.
or
I think you are off by 1.6 microns which is why your inertia calculations make no sense. stupidhead.
both contain insults, one claims credibility...the other has actual detailed information showing he has an idea what he is actually talking about.
Now one may say...hey...you felt the need to tell us how long you have been online to gain credibility!
Yep...but I also gave a detailed explaination as to how to tell who does and who doesnt...lending credibility to what I am saying!
Thats the 3rd example, thos trying to gain credibility TEND to have the lest...not always so judge by the content of whats being said. Thus endith the lesson.
Unfortunately the whole reason of your post was to lend credibility to your theory of "those trying to gain credibility tend to have the least". Id say you have cornered yourself into a nice logical loop.
I give you an F, re-read and study the lesson and try again.
Seems im getting a F in Advanced Ramblings this semester.
I have found that over the 25 years of being online that the person that feels the need to lend credibility to what they are saying tend to have the least.
Judge by the weight and substance of what is being said.
Example: What you said is comeplete bull, I have a degree in chemical engineering...I know what im talking about.
or
I think you are off by 1.6 microns which is why your inertia calculations make no sense. stupidhead.
both contain insults, one claims credibility...the other has actual detailed information showing he has an idea what he is actually talking about.
Now one may say...hey...you felt the need to tell us how long you have been online to gain credibility!
Yep...but I also gave a detailed explaination as to how to tell who does and who doesnt...lending credibility to what I am saying!
Thats the 3rd example, thos trying to gain credibility TEND to have the lest...not always so judge by the content of whats being said. Thus endith the lesson.
Unfortunately the whole reason of your post was to lend credibility to your theory of "those trying to gain credibility tend to have the least". Id say you have cornered yourself into a nice logical loop.
I give you an F, re-read and study the lesson and try again.
Seems im getting a F in Advanced Ramblings this semester.
So now that you fail the "logical loop" is "advanced ramblings!"
F-
Off wit ye
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
I have found that over the 25 years of being online that the person that feels the need to lend credibility to what they are saying tend to have the least.
Judge by the weight and substance of what is being said.
Example: What you said is comeplete bull, I have a degree in chemical engineering...I know what im talking about.
or
I think you are off by 1.6 microns which is why your inertia calculations make no sense. stupidhead.
both contain insults, one claims credibility...the other has actual detailed information showing he has an idea what he is actually talking about.
Now one may say...hey...you felt the need to tell us how long you have been online to gain credibility!
Yep...but I also gave a detailed explaination as to how to tell who does and who doesnt...lending credibility to what I am saying!
Thats the 3rd example, thos trying to gain credibility TEND to have the lest...not always so judge by the content of whats being said. Thus endith the lesson.
Unfortunately the whole reason of your post was to lend credibility to your theory of "those trying to gain credibility tend to have the least". Id say you have cornered yourself into a nice logical loop.
I give you an F, re-read and study the lesson and try again.
Seems im getting a F in Advanced Ramblings this semester.
So now that you fail the "logical loop" is "advanced ramblings!"
It sounds to me as though you are assuming people are lying about playing the game because you disagree strongly with them. Is that a fair call?
If you read my post, i make it clear that i think that some negative reviews are made by people who have clearly played the game.
Now you are suggesting that I didn't read your post because I asked you a question about the dominant issue you appear to be attempting to fix? Is that fair?
In all seriousness I read your post and with the exception of the question above I wasn't intending to be a prick. I was just asking you a question because it felt warranted and I thought I'd give you the opportunity to explain the situation as you saw it better. I still think the question is valid by the way.
In all seriousness he answered your question and your still don't like it. What next?
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Originally posted by ozmono Originally posted by freston
Originally posted by ozmono
It sounds to me as though you are assuming people are lying about playing the game because you disagree strongly with them. Is that a fair call?
If you read my post, i make it clear that i think that some negative reviews are made by people who have clearly played the game. Now you are suggesting that I didn't read your post because I asked you a question about the dominant issue you appear to be attempting to fix? Is that fair? In all seriousness I read your post and with the exception of the question above I wasn't intending to be a prick. I was just asking you a question because it felt warranted and I thought I'd give you the opportunity to explain the situation as you saw it better. I still think the question is valid by the way.
Do you think we can have a normal arguement with you EVER?
I don't think so :P
Some are brilliant in argue about nothing for hours on end.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Comments
I have found that over the 25 years of being online that the person that feels the need to lend credibility to what they are saying tend to have the least.
Judge by the weight and substance of what is being said.
Example: What you said is comeplete bull, I have a degree in chemical engineering...I know what im talking about.
or
I think you are off by 1.6 microns which is why your inertia calculations make no sense. stupidhead.
both contain insults, one claims credibility...the other has actual detailed information showing he has an idea what he is actually talking about.
Now one may say...hey...you felt the need to tell us how long you have been online to gain credibility!
Yep...but I also gave a detailed explaination as to how to tell who does and who doesnt...lending credibility to what I am saying!
Thats the 3rd example, thos trying to gain credibility TEND to have the lest...not always so judge by the content of whats being said. Thus endith the lesson.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Then you know you don't need to post to have a forum name which is what he was suggesting. People can just make up forum names though, and I don't think there is a way to verify names so what does this really accomplish?
In the end it matters little. It is annoying the people who make things up to post reviews or post criticism/complaints. It is also annoying for people to gloss over things that could be real problems or simply things that some people do not like. It's just as annoying for people to twist things in a weird campaign for who knows what reason.
It is a little sad that there are people who rely on this site for objectivity and insight (if you are reading this and think you may be one of those people: DON'T.). These people may get swayed by these false statements, oh well. In the end, there are certain people who will claim GW2 is the best thing ever no matter what happens, and there are those who will call it a fail and hate on it no matter what. In the end, if you enjoy the game......enjoy it. If not, go find a game/hobby you like.
No thanks.
A complaint is a complaint. It can be valid or not. If what they're saying is simply wrong, then it is. If not, it's not. *shrugs*
Oh don't get me wrong I agree with you, its why i tend not to read reviews or forums too often and formulate my own opinion. I'm reading these ones now because I got up early for the stress test
if you consider what we had in 1987 being "online" then in my 28 years of being online I disagree with you. The second example contained detail, but if I don't know chemistry I wouldn't know if that is completely made up BS or if it was correct data. People who don't know about the game and check reviews, well... they don't know about the game do they?
For example, someone who did not know much details about the game could come to this site and read a review that was incredibly detailed and walk away with an opinion of the game based on that. Since that person had no idea engineer's don't get the weapon swap ability they could not tell that review was a complete fabrication. Just as an example.
I agree with what you are saying in many cases but you have to already have knowledge on the subject to tell the bs from the real details. That usually isn't the case when someone is doing initial research, and they may come away with false information.
Unfortunately the whole reason of your post was to lend credibility to your theory of "those trying to gain credibility tend to have the least". Id say you have cornered yourself into a nice logical loop.
Yes, there were a few of those types of reviews where people didn't even know the basic mechanics of the game. Engineers don't get weapon swap, for example. There were a few others similar to that where people made comments on other things in the game that were "off."
I don't place any real creedence on "reviews" on this site except the rare FEW people that I've seen around here long enough and have shown some sort of decent character. To those few I will listen. Otherwise, I think I just assume ulterior motives, for the most part, either for or against the game in question. Trolls abound here, after all, there's really no denying that, and fanbois too are in great numbers (although I sincerely think there are MORE trolls).
In the end I have to decide on games for myself. If I make a mistake, I have no one to blame but myself. If I choose a great game....I have no one to thank but my own research.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
I have no idea what online was like either 25 or 28 years ago but i was introduced to JANET at college in 1992 and thought it was the most amazing thing back then heh. Then At uni in 1994 I played my first MUD Farside i thik it was called and my life has never been the same since lol
IS it a matter of coned attacks (hits all in a radius)? That's what AOC and TSW use, or is it something else?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Every attack works that way, you don't need a target to fire it. If you get in the event today, you can try, and you will notice you can fire attacks even if there's no hostile mob around you to target.
EDIT: for instance, I was often using charge (or the equivalent on the various classes) when I wanted to travel faster, like a kind of sprint, even without any mob in range. The same ability is also useful to flee when things go wrong, just run in a direction with no mob with nothing targeted, and charge, and you'll gain distance with your pursuers.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
I give you an F, re-read and study the lesson and try again.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Yeah I'm aware of the free fire, I'm just wondering how the "aimed" attacks work, are they AOE's or totally aimed, IE: you can hone in on a target precisely?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
What they affect is usually in the skill description, e.g. 5 mobs around you, or 3 mobs in front, or all mobs in front, etc... and of course some attacks only affect a single mob right in front of you. Different skills have different effects when it comes to AOE.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Nahh, the real issue was people doing this typing a well written and lengthy explination with tons of details and facts about GW2, how they played an engineer etc. then adding one sentence i would switch my weapon from rifle to pistol and shield if things got close in while fighting....
In there reading and trolling of GW2 they missed that eles and engis cannot switch weapons in combat like other classes can. Stuff like this over and over. Sure there are some people who said .... i just didn't liek the game ... but they usually didn't provide much details thus you have to take them at their word... noe for those who say DE work just like previous rifts or PQs and discribed why a bit, it was easy agian to be like well obviouslly you didn't play them. Becuase your facts are wrong.
But thats a semi good solution, but you could just make up a name ... no one is goign to check anyway.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Cool thanks for the info.. That's how I figured it worked but I wasn't sure.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ok well all attacks are in a way ones that u can aim with. But a few are directional AIMs. How they work is you point your mouse in the direction and height you want it to go and it flys that direction (like FPS/tera) Also the GTAOEs are much like aimed abilities in gw2. As with the FAST option of quick aoe something option basiccly where ever your mouse is thasts where the GTAOE is going (many classes main abilities is a gtaoe that needs targesting on few sec cd so you use it alot and do far more damage with the faST option enabled)
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Seems im getting a F in Advanced Ramblings this semester.
So now that you fail the "logical loop" is "advanced ramblings!"
F-
Off wit ye
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Most right, sir. This is Basic Ramblings at most.
In all seriousness he answered your question and your still don't like it. What next?
youre just a big poopy mc poopyface
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Now you are suggesting that I didn't read your post because I asked you a question about the dominant issue you appear to be attempting to fix? Is that fair?
In all seriousness I read your post and with the exception of the question above I wasn't intending to be a prick. I was just asking you a question because it felt warranted and I thought I'd give you the opportunity to explain the situation as you saw it better. I still think the question is valid by the way.
Do you think we can have a normal arguement with you EVER?
I don't think so :P
Some are brilliant in argue about nothing for hours on end.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
You win this one.
Just highlighting the unsubstantiated claims that cost you any credibility in your assertions.
Perhaps an opinion can never be wrong, but they most certainly can be mis-guided.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I win!
IN YOUR FACE INTERNET!
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson